IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 04, 2025 Meenu Devi and others ...Appellants VERSUS Som Dutt and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Devansh Khanna, Advocate for Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3 ****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, assailing the adequacy of the compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide Award dated 31.07.2014, vis-a-vis, the death of Vinod Kumar, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 01.03.2013.

On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal had concluded about the accident to have taken place, on account of rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration No.HR-35G-4877, driven by respondent No.1-Somdutt and as a consequence thereof, Vinod Kumar, had died.

Also, further while taking into consideration the date of birth of Vinod Kumar, spelt out as 12.12.1978, from the income tax returns Ex.P4 to Ex.P6, it was concluded that deceased was not less than 33 years. However, the income tax returns Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 were discarded. However, considering the deceased to be an income tax payee, his income was assessed as Rs.8000/- per month. Considering the number of dependents, deduction to the extent of 1/3rd was made, on the count of ‘personal expenses’ and the annual loss of dependency was worked upon as Rs.5334x12=Rs.64008/-. The multiplier of ‘13’ was applied and the compensation was worked upon as Rs.8,32,104/-. Besides the same, another amount of Rs.20,000/- was granted, on account of transportation and last rites. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was also granted to claimant No.1 as consortium and another amount of Rs.20,000/- was granted towards ‘love and affection’. The liability to pay the compensation was, jointly and severally, fastened upon the respondents i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the offending car. Be it noted that, none of the respondents, who were saddled with the liability, have filed any appeal. As such, there is no necessity to further dwell on the aforesaid aspects.

However, keeping in view the prevalent law, the compensation, so worked upon by learned Tribunal, do call for re-computation. Throughout the arguments, much emphasis has been laid upon the income tax returns Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. It is the categoric claim of the claimants in the claim petition that deceased was proprietor of M/s Balaji Enterprises, Behror. In the claim petition, what kind of proprietorship it was, nothing, as such was stated. However, it was stated only by Sumitra Devi, mother of the deceased, when she stepped into witness box as PW-1, about the deceased to be indulging in the business of Khal Binola.

It is pertinent to mention that income tax returns Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 were tendered into evidence. No doubt, income tax returns can be reliable piece of evidence, but however, for taking into consideration the same, these have to be appropriately brought on record. These have been simply brought on record, by recording of statement of the counsel and it does not give anything about the nature of work of the deceased and also, no other document, as such, has come on record, with regard to the running of firm by the name of M/s Balaji Enterprises.

In the given circumstances, learned Tribunal had appropriately not relied upon the said income tax returns to make assessment of the earnings of the deceased. However, keeping in view the fact of deceased being an income tax payee, some guess work was adopted on the attending circumstances and the income was taken as Rs.8000/- per month. At the relevant time of taking place of the accident on 01.03.2013, the minimum wages of un-skilled worker was Rs.5212.15 per month. However, in any case, deceased Vinod Kumar, could not be placed, at par with un-skilled worker. It is not necessary to consider the earnings of the deceased of minimum